You have a copy and paste error in this post. I've done a ton of these myself.

Ashtagon wrote:Axes

The primary characteristic of a pick is a sharp pointy end which is swung at the target. Sickles (including the scythe) feature a blade with a well-defined curve. The inside of this is sharpened. The normal usage of such weapons in combat will often result in the sharpened tip also causing wounds. For this reason, the two groups of weapons are merged into one weapon proficiency family.

I'd have to agree with that. One of the great PHB mistakes was that Rogues were not proficient with the sap(it being martial weapon for some foolish reason). Muggers need not be murderers ater all. It allows the victim to survive and make more money and be mugged all over again. It's simply smart bidness you see.

I'd make the sap a Light bludgeoning weapon, and a Simple one to boot. See here for how small they really are:

A 9" version which would probably be more in keeping with a D&D sap:

Saps are only 6-12 inches long, so they are very easily wielded. A "D" battery or billiard ball in sock makes for a handy sap, is easy to make, and it will bust somebody up very badly even when used by the average schmuck.

If you are going to include the jo and quarterstaff among clubs, you should reconsider the note of:"Note that there are no "light" clubs, reflecting the relatively unwieldy nature and inferior craftsmanship required for a club."

Neither is unwieldy, and both require at least moderate attention to craftsmanship to be useful.Also, if it exists in one book or other, you should add the tonfa to that group.

For the "trip" entry in general, I consider this an overall poor design choice that should simply be removed. Virtually any weapon can be used to trip, but there are some particularly egregious absences, such as the above mentioned jo and quarterstaff.

Another absence is certain weapons being usable to grapple in one manner or other above and beyond just a sleeve entangler or mancatcher. Getting your forearm trapped by a sai is not a pleasant experience, and many weapons should be able to be used for grapples, including pinning in place for piercing weapons, and weapon binds.

"Axes"Including halberd in Axe group does not look correct. Halberd is a polearm in case of wielding style, size and battle role. In "Races" said that dwarves receive free proficiency in axes - but dwarves with halberds in underground tunnels looks weird.Khopesh was used as a machete-like weapon, not axe.

"Blades"Many historical longswords have a grip only for one hand - especially horseman-used.Hand on lower blade part may be layed without gauntlet - most earlier swords (include broadsword, bastard sword, two-handed sword) have sharp edge only on upper third of blade.Dadao and Katana are very different swords in case of battle technique.Jian and Ken are straight blades.

Jargal wrote:"Axes"Khopesh was used as a machete-like weapon, not axe.

I disagree; D&D has generally not included real khopeshes, at least through second edition (honestly can't say about later editions). The original khopesh was an evolution of the epsilon axe, and was essentially an all-metal axe with the back of the haft removed to cut down on material/weight.

Mace vs club - I now consider the primary distinguishing characteristic to be some kind of flange or set of spikes or other small protrusions around the head of the weapon. This change of course makes the baseball bat into a kind of club.

Khopesh - Still not decided on how it should be placed. The convex side of the head was the business side, making it functionally an axe. Does anyone know if the concave side was actually ever used for tripping attacks, or was that just a D&D invention? If a D&D invention, then this is really just an oddly-shaped axe (or possibly an oddly-shaped scimitar).

Long sword - There was a specific historical weapon called the long sword, which was not ever intended as a cavalry weapon. Actual cavalry swords were what I termed broadswords, which I also noted is being used by me outside its historical definition.

Jian, ken - yes, I know these were straight blades.

Dao, katana - Technique may have been different, but they were still both curved blades. I refuse to play up to the "Asian weapons are superior" meme that seems to have sprung up from back when 1e Oriental Adventures first appeared.

Pinning in place with spears - Should this be implemented, or is it an unnecessary complication that will slow down combat? At some point realism does need to e sacrificed in favour of playing time.

Weapons useful in grapples - 3e so far only ever said that light weapons can e used to make attacks, without giving anything a bonus in actual grapple attacks. This is definitely something worthy of enhancing.

Emma Rome, otherwise known as AshtagonOverall site admin for The Piazza. My moderator colour is pink!

Ashtagon wrote:Mace vs club - I now consider the primary distinguishing characteristic to be some kind of flange or set of spikes or other small protrusions around the head of the weapon. This change of course makes the baseball bat into a kind of club.

Smooth balls of stone or metal, as well as knobbed ones, were frequently used as mace heads in the bronze age. I'd say the defining characteristics are manufacture and not-wood business ends (and I agree a bat would be a club).

Ashtagon wrote:Khopesh - Still not decided on how it should be placed. The convex side of the head was the business side, making it functionally an axe. Does anyone know if the concave side was actually ever used for tripping attacks, or was that just a D&D invention? If a D&D invention, then this is really just an oddly-shaped axe (or possibly an oddly-shaped scimitar).

D&D invention, simply because I don't think we can really know. The ancients didn't deem such things worthy of discussion. I would say it was used for tripping as much as any other weapon (I seriously doubt you had a lot of people saying "hey, you're not supposed to use that in such a way!" during battles...). Plus I can't recall any mention of it in earlier editions (edit: nor do I recall any mention of it in my books on the subject).